The key to a prime vs prime debate is simple 1. Do not select one fighter as having their prime when they have a spectacular result against an unfavored opponent and another fighter as having their prime during a sub standard result against a favoured opponent. i.e Do not select Mohammad Ali due to the Sonny Liston fight while selecting Wladimir Klitschko against Corrie Sanders/Lamon Brewster. 2. Do not create assets a fighter did not have in their prime. i.e If you're wanting to say Bernard Hopkins was in his prime as a 30-35 yr old, do not rate his defense, Ring IQ and such on the same scale as he had from 40-45. 3. Do not take away assets a fighter had in their prime that they did not have after their prime i.e Do not say Joe Calzaghe has a sub-par chin and defense based on him going down as a 36 or 37 yr old when fighting Hopkins and not rate him when he took some of Eubank's heavy shots late in their fight, some of Reid's shots throughout their fight and the shots he took from Byron Mitchell before knocking him out. 4. When selecting a "prime" - do not take a fighter on their best ever performance while selecting a fighter on their usual performance. i.e Do not select Mike Tyson on his domination of Spinks while selecting Lennox Lewis during his entire career. Follow these four rules and you don't get stupid debates where James Toney is deemed to have been a great fighter at 168, rather than the poor excuse of a man who was struggling to make weight, was lethargic in the ring, didn't have massive punching power and could be out-worked by less than stellar competition (Tiberi)
Do not look at Marvin Hagler-Thomas Hearns and come to the conclusion that Hagler was some face-first brawler who took two to give one, when in reality he fought in a boxer-puncher mode the great majority of the time.
great post. when i first started reading the thread i was actually thinking of toney at 168 and how the barkley fight is his greatest performance. to be honest though, that's the fight i think of when assessing his prime though he never duplicated that level of talent again
I can't stand fantasy head to heads for all those reasons and then some. e.g Wlad got knocked out by Ross Purrity ergo Tyson would decapitate him in one round. Yet Prime Tyson went the distance with James Tillis and Mitch Green. It's fun to imagine the clash of styles but anymore analysis just becomes tedious as there really is know way of knowing.
boxing now has so many changes less fights per year different training different equipment different rules more weights more titles roids strenght conditioning coaches boxers now have diet coaches or atleast the best there sometimes just is no comparison
all these mythical matchups are just that myth.. nobody will ever know who'll win and people go by bias since they're fan of one fighter... but great fighters lost to fighters they werent supposed to in their prime so debate all you want and nobody here knows more than the other of what wouldve happen :hat
i did a tournament on fight round 4 i am 35 by the way just thought it would b fun cause it puts every fighter in their prime the format is too long to put on here but the top 2 fighters come out to be ali and hearns at 147 the most exciting fight was ortiz vs hatton i know it doesnt mean anything but it was fun it was also funny how alot of the fights that have happend be for come out close to reality like lewis ko'd tyson in 7 close mab and morralles was a war in favor morralles and 2 standouts that i think would they have fought at their primes was ali ko'd frazier in 7 and i think that might have happened had they fought at ali's best and taylor beat calzaghe by ud manny always said cal was taylor made for taylor no pun intended
